Come on, Clint Smith...do you hate Ruger?

Status
Not open for further replies.
He probably figures that Rugers are bulky, heavy, have atrocious DA trigger pulls, and are made in 5- or 6-shot varieties only.

He probably figures that lower gun weight and bulk, sleek design, good DA triggers, and 7-shot .357 guns (or 5-shot ultralights) show that designers are seriously looking to make defensive revolvers.

Ruger's new offerings in the last decade include what? Monster guns, cowboy guns, .17HMR revolvers. Nothing wrong with that, but these aren't made for self-defense except against grizzlies, pesky train robbers and ferocious ground squirrels.
 
pangris said:
I'd be very curious to know if any of the people denigrating Mr. Smith have ever met the man. If you had, I suspect you might have a substantially more respect for his integrity.

Whatever the reason - be it oversight, intention, etc - I would wager it is an honest reason, and I'm one of those that doesn't bet unless it is a sure thing.
You missed a spot.
 
geez guys dont you remember where you live. Its america and hes welcome to his opinion just like you. Who real gives a crap what anyone else says about there gun It aint like hes badmouthing your kid!!
 
He probably figures that Rugers are bulky, heavy, have atrocious DA trigger pulls, and are made in 5- or 6-shot varieties only.

If so, then he's so grossly misinformed he has no business writing for any gun magazine. The SP-101 and the Security Six that came before are some of the finest .357 CCW revolvers ever made. S&W has scandium and Taurus has titanium, but what's the point of making a .357 so light you have to load it with .38 Specials? The SP-101 is the lightest a .357 can be and still be practical as a close range rapid fire revolver.
 
Well perhaps he is carrying on the grand tradition of American gunwriters. You know the tradition. Where one purposefully writes something that they know is provocative or in this case leaves something out.

Elmer Keith and Jack O-Conner mauled each other for decades. It seems that Jeff Cooper is always slamming folks who don't carry a 1911 in 45acp and Charles Askins was constantly needling Bill Jordan in print.

Just look at all the postings this thread already has. Heck it's my third on this thread.I wonder if Mr. Smith is a boat-rocker?
 
It might not be hatred. He seems to prefer (as I and many others do), larger bore sizes. While Ruger offers the mighty Redhawk, in most of its configurations it is difficult to pack when compared to a medium frame S&W or Taurus. The GP100 and SP101 are .357 and smaller caliber. Some of us, perhaps irrationally, just feel better punching bigger holes.
 
ArmedBear, the fact remains that this:

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5720&return=Y

is a straight-up defensive revolver designed to be drawn from concealment, and one of the most popular around. (It weighs 2 oz more than a S&W 640.)

And you're not claiming that recent production S&W J-frames have "good DA triggers," are you? If anything, the Tauruses I've handled recently have felt superior.
 
Who cares what Clint Smith or any other gun teacher-scribe omits or supports? I'm sure the man puts on his pants one leg at a time like the rest of us, and is entitled both to his opinions and to making mistakes.

Rugers are fine guns. Less finished than Smiths, but sturdier, less expensive and without locks in most examples. With a little tweaking, Ruger DA triggers can be quite good. The SP101 carries well and handles full power
.357 Magnum rounds easily and constantly, unlike J-frame
.357 Smiths, which are more uncomfortable to shoot with .357 Magnum than any SP101 or GP100 Rugers.

I own seven Smiths and five Rugers, so hopefully have an unbiased view of the two marques strengths and weaknesses. Taurus guns, OTOH, have poor QC nowadays. They used to be a real bargain in the '80s, with quality as good or better than S&W's, yet at bargain prices. No more.
 
He might have been trying to slight Colt, not Ruger. Colt once made lots of good quality, low weight snubbies.

I've never met the man, but from posts on THR it seems he has a tendency to write some strange things in gun rags. Still, he's the real deal, and his classes seem good.

As for Ruger, most agree the SP101 and GP100 are good revolvers, but the fact remains Ruger is seemingly not very interested in small handguns of any type. They are the "arms maker for responsible citizens," after all. :eek:
 
The last ruger just retired from the company. There have long been a number of designs on the table that the founder didn't want to produce.- small revolvers, Titanium revolvers and Mini 14s. Don't be surprised if some of these start showing up.
 
There was a long couple of decades when things were going very well. Lately, the local distributor has had nothing but problems with the entire line of Ruger guns.
 
There is likely no limit to what Ruger is capable of...http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Casting/index.html I just wish they would try a few new things every once in awhile...However, I agree that the SP-101 in .357 is the limit for a practical small full house revolver. The Scandium/Titanium Smiths are, for my dainty little hands, useless. but, a Smith 642 has been my backup gun for 12 years.
 
Ruger doesn't make anywere near as many models and sub-models as Taurus or S&W, but then why should it? It's found what it likes and what sells. Good for them. I don't care what their long-dead founder wrote to Congress fifteen years ago. That law has come and gone. Ruger sells highcaps where they can make money selling highcaps. They sell pistol highcaps to civilians. If they were anti-gun, LIKE S&W HAS BEEN, they would have put trigger locks on their irons and they sure as heck wouldn't be selling high caps to civilians for their pistols.

In contrast, S&W HAS signed off on a vigorously anti-gun contract with the worst of the Clinton era grabbers. If that weren't bad enough, S&W seems to change its mind every other year and has a long track record of destroying the good things about its own products. I love the old P&R Model 36's and K-Frame .357's, but there's nothing in the current company lineup that can touch those classics. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Not even within ten miles. They've churned out a bunch of idiotic garbage designed to spin well in the gun rags and make a spash at the industry shows. An 8-shot .357? A .357 that weighs less than 12 ounces? A snub barrel X-Frame in .500 S&W?!! And you're telling me these guys are the industry leader?! This is eye candy to sway weak minds.
 
When Diogenes carried his search for an honest man through Gun Valley, he had to hold the lamp of truth a bit higher to clear the bullcrap.
I would be difficult to enjoy our guns if we spent too much time dwelling on how many members of the gun industry have danced with Sarah Brady in the cold moonlight.
 
It was simply a way for C Smith to "pre write" another column. He will respond I betcha.

Brilliant.
 
Count me in with those who believe he meant what he said, "extensive lineof handguns". Clearly, Taurus makes the most different types of double-action revolvers and Smith no doubt has the next most extensive line of DA revolvers. Since he said "defensive", I am assuming he is discounting single-action revolvers (I know, some folks use SAs as defense guns). Based on double-action revolvers, Ruger makes relatively few different types and even less now than a year or two ago. I'm a big Ruger fan and don't see a slight in his statement, just a fact. Also, I don't know why anyone cares what someone else thinks about their choice. I don't. It's what I think that counts, anyway. BTW, Ruger is the largest gunmaker, period. Far larger than Taurus or Smith and Wesson. I, too, wish they would broaden their line of DA revolvers. Lastly, all of these companies have compromised in the past to one extent or another. I suspect most here have bent a bit somewhere in their lives also, for one reason or another. At least Ruger has avoided those infernal, I mean internal, locks, so far...for the most part.
 
leaving out Ruger just makes him sound like a hack that does not know what he is talking about. I have nothing against S&W or Taurus (even own a Taurus) but when it comes to revolvers Ruger is the way to go for both SA or DA. I have the GP100, the SP101, the SBH Hunter, and a Vaquero and love them all. The GP100 (6" barrel) is probably the smoothest shooting, most accurate revolver I have ever shot and the .45colt Vaquero is not far behind.
 
I do not think Mr Smith meant any harm with his article.
But since some want to compare Ruger and S&W products, here is what I have seen.
We judge all thing's in life, from our personal experiences.
Past experience with a Redhawk, and SRH. Bad triggers, gritty actions, timing issues with Redhawk,rear sight that broke off the SRH with very low round count, throat problems with the SRH.
As a result, I could care less if Ruger went out of business.
If I wanted to pay extra for a gunsmith to make a revolver "nice", I would have simply bought another custom to begin with.
Meanwhile my S&W (686,686P,627,29,629,revolvers have never given me any problems, and just keep right on going.
 
I know that Ruger isn't as large as S&W and perhaps even Taurus,

For those who believe S&W and Taurus are larger than Ruger, think again. I believe Ruger has been the largest privately-owned firearms manufacturer in the world.

From Wikipedia.org:
"Ruger is the largest American firearms manufacturer."

"Sturm, Ruger stock has been publicly traded since 1969, and became a New York Stock Exchange company in 1990 (NYSE:RGR). "

Link to Wkipedia's page.
 
I do not think Mr Smith meant any harm with his article.

Sure he did. Apparently insulting people for not liking his gun wasn't enough and so he has taken to insulting other brands of guns.

When I took my first class from Clint Smith, he downplayed frills on guns even though he carried and shot his engraved Baer 1911. He had no problem with putting it down on the gravel and did not baby it, so I figured that was alright. Like he said, you should not carry a gun that you don't want banged up and over time with practice and carry, it happens. It was his contention that the frills are what often cause problems under circumstances of getting banged around. Okay fine.

Later classes, things were a little more commercial. They then had the TR AR15 with lots of bells and whistles and particularly features that in a previous class he said were not great for a fighting gun. Somebody asked about the AR15 and the frills and he said the platform was solid and the frills were frills. Okay fine.

Then came the lovely article in American Handgunner where he referred to those who did not like his S&W .44 special TR edition as "turd suckers." I don't like it. So I am a turd sucker and won't be going back to visit him, Heidi, and that mutt that shows up occasionally in pictures of them. I also now see where he has gone full commercial with the TR tactical light system with all of the bells and whistles that 4 years earlier he said were just problems waiting to occur at times when you most don't want to have problems, in the dark with a bad guy somewhere around you.

Prior to that, Smith called a class of returning students gun school junkies. I was in the class. He apparently felt most of us weren't there so much for gun handling as entertainment, escape (from the home and family, like a vacation) etc. So I am apparently a gun school junkie who has nothing better to do with a bunch of money than waste it on training that really probably isn't necessary for me or my situation as I am not a gun professional. So, I am a turd sucking gunschool junkie. Thanks Clint.

I don't blame him for going the commercial route. I am surprised he didn't do more of it sooner. There is nothing wrong with making profits, but like so many gunshop owners, he isn't always kind to his clients or potential clients.

In one area he shined, however, was in his compliment of instructors. I took only pistol classes there and Clint spent minimal time with the students, letting his instructors do most of the work. What time he did spend was in taking students through the Terminator, but probably 80% of the class was not taught by him. If his former instructors in Texas put together their own school, I would sign up with them in short order. I won't be signing up with Clint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top